IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
|
|
- Eleanor Pierce
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NOX MEDICAL EHF, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv RGA NATUS NEUROLOGY INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before me is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration on Enhancement of Damages. (D.I. 332). The Parties have fully briefed the issues. (D.I. 333,337,343). Because I did not previously appreciate the differences between the related U.S. and European patents, I will GRANT Plaintiffs motion. The Parties are familiar with the facts of this case. The subject of the present motion is whether I erred by inferring that Defendant had a good faith belief in the invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 9,059,532 ("'532 Patent") based on Defendant's invalidity challenge to the '532 Patent's European counterpart. Because my inference was erroneous, I must also consider what impact, if any, that error has on my decision not to enhance damages. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Reargument The purpose of a motion for reargume~t or reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "[M]otions for reconsideration 'should not
2 be used to rehash arguments already briefed."' BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 429,432 (D. Del. 2002) (quoting Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293,295 (D. Del. 1998)). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate one of the following: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677. B. Enhanced Damages The Patent Act gives the Court discretion to "increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed." 35 U.S.C The Court's discretion "should be exercised in light of the considerations underlying the grant of that discretion." Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1926 (2016). Enhanced damages are "designed as a 'punitive' or 'vindictive' sanction for egregious infringement behavior," which is "willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrong, flagrant, or-indeed-characteristic of a pirate." Id. at Enhanced damages are "not to be meted out in a typical infringement ca_se." Id. A jury's finding of willful infringement is a prerequisite to enhancement of damages but is not by itself sufficient. Id. Where an infringer's behavior is willful, the Court may evaluate a set of "non-exclusive" factors set forth in Read Corp. v. Portee, Inc., to determine if damages should be enhanced and the extent to which they should be enhanced. 970 F.2d 816, (Fed. Cir. 1992); Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 875 F.3d 1369, (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Read factors include: (1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he knew of the other's patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed; (3) the infringer's behavior as a party to the litigation; (4) 2
3 defendant's size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6) duration of defendant's misconduct; (7) remedial action by the defendant; (8) defendant's motivation for harm; and (9) whether defendant attempted to conceal its misconduct. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Read Corp., 970 F.2d at ). A movant must establish its entitlement to enhanced damages under Section 284 by a preponderance of the evidence. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at II. DISCUSSION A. Significance of Defendant's Challenge to the European Counterpart of the '532 Patent In my Memorandum Opinion, which addressed the Parties' post-trial motions, I considered the Read factors to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.. (D.I. 329 at 7-13). Plaintiff has identified an issue with my analysis of the second Read factor which considers Defendant's good faith belief in invalidity. 970 F.2d at 827. When deciding whether Defendant had a good faith belief that the '532 Patent was invalid I noted (1) Defendant's failure to present evidence of a good faith belief of invalidity during the jury trial, and (2) Defendant's introduction of evidence during the inequitable conduct trial of its pre-issuance challenge to the European counterpart to the '532 Patent. (D.I. 329 at 8). I concluded, "[E]ven though Defendant knew that it was copying the commercial embodiment of the '532 patent almost immediately upon the patent's issuance, it can be inferred [ from its European invalidity challenge] that Defendant did so with a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid." (Id.). Plaintiff argues that, considering the differences between the European patent and the '532 Patent, my inference was inappropriate. It notes claim elements which are unique to the '532 Patent and were significant at trial: "(i) a conductor 'passing through the receiving hole,' (ii) a conductor 'wrapped around the engaging member,' [and] (iii) that the conductor be a 3
4 conductor 'of the electrode belt'..." (D.I. 333 at 4 (quoting '532 Patent, claim 1)). Plaintiff concludes, "It is impossible to have a good faith belief of invalidity of the '532 patent without addressing these claim limitations, which are not in the European counterpart." (Id.). After additional review of the record, I agree. I did not previously appreciate the differences between the U.S. and European patents. Compare '532 Patent, claim 1, with European Pat. No. 2,584,962, claim 1. Thus, I must admit that Plaintiff is correct. I overstated the significance of Defendant's challenge to the European counterpart to the '532 Patent. A good faith belief that a broader patent is invalid does not, by itself, establish a good faith belief tµat a narrower patent on the same matter is invalid. Perhaps it supports the conclusion that Defendant was not acting in bad faith. It does not, however, establish that Defendant had a good faith belief of invalidity based on its evaluation of the claims of the '532 Patent. B. Modified Analysis of the Read Factors I addressed each of the nine Read factors in my Memorandum Opinion. (D.I. 329 at 7-13). I summarize and clarify my reasoning on each of those factors below. On balance, despite changing my view on the second Read factor, I do not find that Defendant's behavior was "willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrong, flagrant, or-indeedcharacteristic of a pirate." Halo Elecs., 136 S. Ct. at Thus, I do not believe enhanced damages are appropriate. I will again deny Plaintiffs Post-Trial Motion, as to.enhanced Damages. (D.I. 288). I previously found that the first Read factor, whether Defendant deliberately copied Plaintiffs design, supports enhancement of damages. (D.I. 329 at 7). The evidence shows that Defendant sent Plaintiffs commercial product to Defendant's Chinese manufacturer and told the manufacturer to copy it, calling it the "Nox knock off." (Id.). However, I found that the weight 4
5 of Defendant's copying in the overall analysis was reduced because the actions pre-dated the issuance of Plaintiffs patent. (Id.). As I address above, I previously found that the second factor, whether Defendant had a good faith belief in the invalidity of the '532 Patent, does not support enhancement of damages. (Id. at 8). Specifically, I found that Defendant's pre-suit challenge to the European counterpart supported an inference of Defendant's good faith. (Id.). That inference was faulty. However, I take note of Defendant's consistent course of action regarding the invalidity of patents on Plaintiffs invention. Defendant challenged the broader claims in Europe, contested the claims through trial here, and instituted inter partes review challenging the claims at the Patent Office. These actions are circumstantial evidence that Defendant held a good faith belief that the '532 Patent was invalid. This evidence does not support a conclusive finding that Defendant was acting in good faith, but it does make it a close question. Accordingly, I find that the second Read factor weighs against enhancing damages, albeit weakly. In the Memorandum Opinion, I found that the third Read factor, Defendant's behavior during the litigation, did not support enhancing damages. (Id.). I rejected Plaintiffs position, stating, "Plaintiffs argument is ultimately devoid of any persuasive evidence that Defendant engaged in bad faith behaviors over the course of the litigation." (Id. at 9-10). My view of this factor remains unchanged. 1 I also found that the fourth factor, Defendant's size and financial condition, is neutral. (Id. at 10). I noted, "Plaintiff offers no information about Defendant's size or financial condition." (Id.). Thus, Plaintiff did not establish that this factor supports enhancing damages. 1 Although I maintain that this factor is on balance a wash, I note that the neutrality of any given factor generally favors a finding for Defendant. That is, when a factor is neutral it indicates that the case looks like most other infringement cases in that respect. The fewer facts, and factors, favoring Plaintiff's position, the less likely the case is to stand out as egregious. 5
6 I found that the fifth factor, closeness of the case, weighs against enhancement of damages. (Id.). l based this determination on the strength of Defendant's invalidity defense. (Id.). I found, "No claim element among the asserted claims of the '532 patent stands out as being nakedly absent from the prior art." (Id. at 11). Plaintiff takes issue with this finding. (See D.I. 333 at 7 n.4). It argues that I considered only whether all elements were present in the prior art and failed to acknowledge the requirement that there be a reason to combine. (Id.). It also notes that Defendant's defenses were developed, "long after it knew about the '532 Patent and long after it had decided to infringe it." (Id. at 7). Plaintiffs arguments on this point do not persuade me that this was not a close case on the invalidity question. Defendant presented prior art references containing every element of the asserted claims. (D.I. 329 at 11). In the obviousness analysis, finding prior art that maps onto each of the claim elements is a major part of the inquiry. Having accomplished this, Defendant was inarguably close to making a_successful obviousness argument. Defendant's failure to win on the issue does not negate that fact. Moreover, the fifth Read factor deals with the closeness of the case, not how close the Defendant felt the case was at the time of first infringement. Thus, I maintain that the fifth factor weighs against enhancement of damages. I found that the sixth Read factor, duration of Defendant's misconduct, supports enhancement of damages. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff willfully infringed the '532 Patent for three years, starting on the date of its issuance. (Id. at 11-12). Three years is an objectively lengthy time to knowingly infringe a valid patent. I found that the seventh Read factor, Defendant's remedial action, weakly supports enhancement of damages. (Id. at 12). In reaching that conclusion, I balanced Defendant's 6
7 voluntary replacement of the infringing belt in January 2018 against the ease of avoiding significant infringement by moving the product out of the country. (Id.). I found that the eighth factor, Defendant's motivation for harm, does not support enhancement. (Id.). Plaintiff did not present persuasive evidence that Defendant acted with a motivation to cause harm other than the harm incidental to direct business competition. I found that the ninth factor, Defendant's attempts to conceal misconduct, does not support enhancement. (Id. at 13). Plaintiff did not present evidence that Defendant attempted to hide its product or sales. Weighing the Read factors and considering the totality of the circumstances, I again find that enhancement of damages is not warranted. The evidence establishes that Defendant deliberately copied Plaintiff's product, willfully sold its infringing product for three years, and failed to take an apparently easy remedial action. However, Defendant's deliberate copying occurred before the '532 Patent issued and Defendant did, eventually, voluntarily end its infringing activity. Overall, the three facts supporting enhancement are weak. Thus, even absent any offsetting factors, I do not find that Defendant's behavior rose to the level of "willful, wanton, malicious, bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrong, flagrant," or pirate-like. With counterbalancing factors such as Defendant's likely good faith belief of invalidity and the strength of Defendant's case, I am convinced that enhancement is inappropriate in this case. Accordingly, I decline to enhance the damages awarded by the jury. I will again deny Plaintiffs Post-Trial Motion, as to Enhanced Damages. (D.I. 288). III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff identified a clear error of fact which required me to reconsider a portion of the Memorandum Order. (D.I. 329). However, after reconsidering the Read factors, I still believe enhanced damages are inappropriate in this case. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on 7
8 Enhancement of Damages (D.I. 332) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Post-Trial Motion, as to Enhanced Damages (D.I. 288), remains DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 day of December
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 0-cv-0-MMC
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationCase 1:12-cv PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, Consolidated Civil Action No. v. 12-11935-PBS
More informationThe Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends. By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan
The Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan I. INTRODUCTION The concept of enhanced damages in not new to patent law. The Patent
More informationThe Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH
The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH Steven M. Auvil, Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Steve Auvil
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LOGGERHEAD TOOLS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION and APEX TOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 12-cv-9033 Judge
More informationWhat s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision. June 2016
What s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision Andrew J. Pincus apincus@mayerbrown.com Brian A. Rosenthal brosenthal@mayerbrown.com June 2016
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 02-1694 GMS TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP, Defendant. ORDER 1. The plaintiff, Becton,
More informationMeet the Presenters. Luke Dohmen 25 years of corporate IP experience Former Chief Patent Counsel of Boston Scientific
Meet the Presenters Luke Dohmen 25 years of corporate IP experience Former Chief Patent Counsel of Boston Scientific Tyler Nasiedlak Principal at Schwegman w/ 20+ years of IP experience Former VP, GC and
More informationEnhanced Damages in Patent Cases After Halo v. Pulse
June 23, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases After Halo v. Pulse Craig Countryman Principal Southern California Overview Litigation Series Key Developments & Trends Housekeeping
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mehl v. SCI Forest et al Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RYAN ANDREW MEHL, : Petitioner : : No. 1:17-cv-1437 v. : : (Judge Rambo) SCI FOREST, et al.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION HUGH JARRATT and JARRATT INDUSTRIES, LLC PLAINTIFFS v. No. 5:16-CV-05302 AMAZON.COM, INC. DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER
More informationThe New Reality of Willful Infringement Post-Halo. Copyright Baker Botts All Rights Reserved.
The New Reality of Willful Infringement Post-Halo Copyright Baker Botts 2017. All Rights Reserved. Before June 2016, Seagate shielded jury from most willfulness facts Two Seagate prongs: 1. Objective prong
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationPatent Litigation in the Energy Sector. Mitigating the risk of willful infringement and treble damages
Patent Litigation in the Energy Sector Mitigating the risk of willful infringement and treble damages July 18, 2018 James L. Duncan III Counsel, IP Litigation Group 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ART+COM INNOVATIONPOOL GMBH, Plaintiff; v. Civi!ActionNo.1:14-217-TBD GOOGLE INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Motions in Limine Presently
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 790 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 790 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationKabacinski v. Bostrom Seating Inc
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-30-2004 Kabacinski v. Bostrom Seating Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1986 Follow
More informationTrends in Enhanced Damages and Willfulness in Patent Cases Mindy Sooter Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
Trends in Enhanced Damages and Willfulness in Patent Cases Mindy Sooter Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Mindy.Sooter@WilmerHale.com The Patent Act provides two mechanisms meant to deter bad
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LUGUS IP, LLC, v. Plaintiff, VOLVO CAR CORPORATION and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants. Civil. No. 12-2906 (RBK/JS) OPINION KUGLER,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Double M. Development v. Mann Realty Association Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., : : Appellant, : No. 1:17-cv-1225 : v.
More informationCase 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case :04-cv-000-TJW Document 44 Filed 0/1/007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEYOND INNOVATION
More informationCase 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18
--------------------- ----- Case 1:13-cv-02027-JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x COGNEX CORPORATION;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. Case No.: -cv-01-h-bgs ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANT S
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 293 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-blf Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FITNESS ANYWHERE LLC, Plaintiff, v. WOSS ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf
More informationDetermining "Damages Adequate to Compensate for the Infringement"
Determining "Damages Adequate to Compensate for the Infringement" 11th Annual Patent Law Institute 2017 Drew Mooney Scott Oliver The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the presenter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: * CHAPTER 11 BLACK, DAVIS & SHUE AGENCY, * INC., * Debtor * * BLACK, DAVIS & SHUE AGENCY,
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Changes Standards for Attorney Fee Awards in Patent Cases by David R. Todd
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. Both cases involve parties who
More informationBrief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to
Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period 11-9-2017 to 12-13-2017 By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC This article presents a brief summary of relevant precedential points of law during
More informationInternational Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now
International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. Plaintiff, HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC CORPORATION, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION HONORABLE RICHARD
More informationCase 3:15-cv M Document 67 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1072 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-01121-M Document 67 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1072 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., and NATIONAL AUTO PARTS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,
More informationGary Sheehan Sr. v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2011 Gary Sheehan Sr. v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VENTRONICS SYSTEMS, LLC Plaintiff, vs. DRAGER MEDICAL GMBH, ET AL. Defendants. CASE NO. 6:10-CV-582 PATENT CASE ORDER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. Case No.: -cv-001-h-bgs ORDER: (1) DENYING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 MEDTRICA SOLUTIONS LTD., Plaintiff, v. CYGNUS MEDICAL LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit METTLER-TOLEDO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B-TEK SCALES, LLC, Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2011-1173, -1200 Appeals from the United States District
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
World Wide Stationery Manufacturing Co., LTD. v. U. S. Ring Binder, L.P. Doc. 373 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION WORLD WIDE STATIONERY ) MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 14-448-GMS I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Inventor
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationUnited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION VOILÉ MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION vs. LOUIS DANDURAND and BURNT MOUNTAIN DESIGNS, LLC, Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POSITEC USA INC., and POSITEC USA INC., Plaintiffs, C.A. No. 05-890 GMS v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM I.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1390 JOHN FORCILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591
Case: 1:10-cv-04387 Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, L.L.C.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :0-cv-00-RLH -PAL Document Filed 0 Page of AO (Rev. 0 0 MARY ANN SUSSEX; MITCHELL PAE; MALCOLM NICHOLL and SANDY SCALISE; ERNESTO VALDEZ, SR. and ERNESTO VALDEZ, JR.; JOHN HANSON and ELIZABETH HANSON,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
United States District Court 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. :-cv-00-psg (Re: Docket Nos., Case No. :-cv-00-psg (Re: Docket Nos., PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT
More informationCase 1:09-md SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592
Case 1:09-md-02118-SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: CYCLOBENZAPRINE ) HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED ) Civ. No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NEXUSCARD, INC. Plaintiff, v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant. THE KROGER CO. Case No. 2:15-cv-961-JRG (Lead
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN VOCALTAG LTD. and SCR ENGINEERS LTD., v. Plaintiffs, AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V., OPINION & ORDER 13-cv-612-jdp Defendant. This is
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-107 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2017 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: GOOGLE INC., Petitioner 2017-107 On Petition for Writ
More informationReexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TechRadium, Inc. v. AtHoc, Inc. et al Doc. 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHRADIUM, INC., Plaintiff, v. ATHOC, INC., et al., Defendants. NO.
More informationCase 1:10-cv JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 110-cv-00137-JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SCHERING CORP., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE : : : : : : : : : : : John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs, POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 12-540-LPS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, BLOCKDOT, INC.; CAREERBUILDER, LLC.; CNET NETWORKS, INC.; DIGG, INC.;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, lj}{iversita DEGLI STUDI di CAGLIARI, CENTRE NATIONAL de la RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE, and L'UNIVERSITE de MONTPELLIER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. -CV-1-H (BGS) ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-02933 Document 78 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION OLE K. NILSSEN and GEO ) FOUNDATION LTD., ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDWIN LYDA, Plaintiff, v. CBS INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jsw ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ILLUMINATION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 10-C-1120 ALAN RUUD, CHRISTOPHER RUUD, and RUUD LIGHTING, Defendants. DECISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., v. Plaintiffs, TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, BULBHEAD.COM, LLC, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase 3:10-cv L Document 29 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 133 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 29 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 133 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0546-L
More informationENTERED August 16, 2017
Case 4:16-cv-03362 Document 59 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JAMES LESMEISTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
More informationHot Topics in U.S. IP Litigation
Hot Topics in U.S. IP Litigation December 3, 2015 Panel Discussion Introductions Sonal Mehta Durie Tangri Eric Olsen RPX Owen Byrd Lex Machina Chris Ponder Baker Botts Kathryn Clune Crowell & Moring Hot
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. AHMET MATT OZCAN d/b/a HESSLA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1656-JRG
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY ELLE FASHIONS, INC., d/b/a MERIDIAN ELECTRIC, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 4:15 CV 855 RWS JASCO PRODUCTS CO., LLC, Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EFFECTIVE EXPLORATION, LLC, v. Plaintiff, BLUESTONE NATURAL RESOURCES II, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00607-JRG-RSP
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. and BELDEN CDT (CANADA INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP and SUPERIOR ESSEX INC., Defendants.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP. and G&T CONVEYOR CO., v. Plaintiffs, SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC.,, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Koning et al v. Baisden Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL KONING, Dr. and Husband, and SUSAN KONING, Wife, v. Plaintiffs, LOWELL BAISDEN, C.P.A., Defendant.
More informationCase 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071
Case 2:12-cv-00147-WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd et al Doc. 101 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, METCO BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-gmn-vcf Document 0 Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RAYMOND JAMES DUENSING, JR. individually, vs. Plaintiff, DAVID MICHAEL GILBERT, individually and in his
More informationThe Court dismissed this patent infringement action on August 9, Anchor Sales &
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRO NI CALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 10/20/2016 ANCHOR SALES & MARKETING, INC., Plaintiff, RICHLOOM FABRICS GROUP, INC.,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014
Supreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 285 of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Taylor et al v. DLI Properties, L.L.C, d/b/a FORD FIELD et al Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Melissa Taylor and Douglas St. Pierre, v. Plaintiffs, DLI
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ,-1524 BRASSELER, U.S.A. I, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 98-1512,-1524 BRASSELER, U.S.A. I, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRYKER SALES CORPORATION and STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. John
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:15-cv-1431-JRG-RSP
More informationUSDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED~;AUG
Case 1:12-cv-07887-AJN Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( ALE)( AND
More information2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo
2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo Law360, New York (January 18, 2017, 12:35 PM EST) This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages
More informationv. Civil Action No LPS-CJB 1. _This is a patent infringement case. On December 1, 2014, plaintiff Y odlee, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE YODLEE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER. At Wilmington this 27th
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LEE STROCK, et al. Plaintiff, Defendants. Case # 15-CV-887-FPG DECISION & ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff United States
More informationShould Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3
Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Parag Shekher 3 Introduction The Federal Circuit stated that it granted a rare petition for a writ of mandamus
More informationCase 1:16-cv TWT Document 118 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:16-cv-03503-TWT Document 118 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THE PAINE COLLEGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 3:13-cv-00145-RLY-WGH Document 13 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ELLIOTT D. LEVIN as Chapter 7 Trustee for
More informationCase 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:06-cv-02304-FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY V. MANE FILS S.A., : Civil Action No. 06-2304 (FLW) : Plaintiff, : : v. : : M E
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THOMAS J. SHAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1567 Appeal from the United
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOSEPH E. MURACH, Plaintiff; V. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, CORRECT CARE SOLUTION, LLC, CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationv. Civil Action No RGA
Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Doc. 432 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Robocast, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-1055-RGA Microsoft Corporation, Defendant.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-WHA Document Filed0// Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 No. C 0-0 WHA ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / FINAL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. AND PULSE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross-Appellants 2013-1472, 2013-1656
More information